Citizen engagement process deeply flawed
On Feb. 20, a public hearing takes place at Vancouver city hall to discuss the rezoning application for a proposed development at Clark Drive and East First Avenue. Plans include affordable housing, a withdrawal management (detox) centre and a social enterprise space.
These all meet important needs of residents but the engagement process follows an out-of-date, paternalistic model that inhibits stakeholder input and runs counter to the expressed views of city councillors.
My perspective is that of a parttime resident, business owner and UBC adjunct professor, where I teach a graduate-level course in engagement. Every week, I speak with students who have a professional interest in engagement processes: we look at what’s being done today in B.C. and North America and evaluate different strategies in terms of their pros, cons and likely results.
Sadly, the engagement process undertaken for the Clark Drive development proposal fails on four basic criteria for meaningful consultation.
First, listen carefully to the values and concerns of potentially affected citizens and come up with a small list of primary objectives — what matters, across all stakeholders, in terms of this development.
Second, use these objectives to construct a range of responsive alternatives.
Third, evaluate the trade-offs across alternatives and eliminate options that are dominated (because others perform better on all key concerns), also eliminate any objectives that don’t help to inform the choice.
Fourth, address remaining tradeoffs by coming up with new, creative alternatives that help to mitigate adverse effects and address distributional questions (who gains, who loses) across parties.
Although the city has held several events referred to as “public consultations” or “community open houses,” I am not aware of any serious activities or communications that adequately address these four requirements. I have not seen a concise list of objectives to compare alternatives. Neither have I seen a comprehensive list of alternatives: minor changes have been made but these are small nudges to a pre-set design.
A true list of alternatives would include consideration of physical separation for the three main spaces: perhaps the social housing units and a social enterprise space would be built at Clark Drive and First Avenue but the detox centre would be sited elsewhere.
Or perhaps the number of social-housing units would be increased substantially or the maximum building height on Clark Drive would be six or eight storeys rather than 10. Or two buildings could be constructed rather than one.
Without this information — objectives and alternatives — it is impossible to think about trade-offs across a true set of options or to gain insight from engagement with local residents, potential facility users and other affected parties.
Finally, there is little incentive to think creatively and come up with more responsive alternatives because from the outset of this process the partners have held firm to a basic design, with little evidence of a desire to truly listen to stakeholders or include them in decisions.
The courts recently overturned approval of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline because federal government failed to consult meaningfully with affected parties.
Closer to home, the City of Vancouver and the provincial government remain opposed to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion on the grounds that residents have been left out as collaborators in the planning and decision-making process.
It makes one wonder why our new civic leaders have stubbornly abandoned their principles and proceeded with an engagement process for Clark and First Avenue that so closely mirrors that of Enbridge or Trans Mountain — one that fails to meet minimum criteria and that continues to create frustration, friction and anger on the part of many residents.
Surely there is a better way. Perhaps if the rezoning application is not approved, the city will wake up and remember its own logic — and then come up with a more responsive, inclusive engagement process that yields an improved design, one that better meets the needs of all stakeholders.